Help with a salty 7th player?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**tneva82**

8th ed has it's good ideas but for me too many immersion breaking rules and don't like how alpha striking has been turned to turbo boost. Go long time deploying models to board and game basically over in first 2 turns? Not my cup of tea.

I prefer HH for...well HH and modified 2nd ed for 40k.

**Arachnofiend**

AaronWilson wrote:
If you don't like 8th. Play 7th.

If you don't like 7th. Play 8th.

I don't this idea where both sides are trying to prove one is the better game, who cares?

To be fair to the 7th edition players, the existence of 8th likely makes it very hard to find a 7th edition game.

**AaronWilson**

Arachnofiend wrote:
AaronWilson wrote:
If you don't like 8th. Play 7th.

If you don't like 7th. Play 8th.

I don't this idea where both sides are trying to prove one is the better game, who cares?

To be fair to the 7th edition players, the existence of 8th likely makes it very hard to find a 7th edition game.

That's fair, but I don't get the peoples whose it seems their personal conquest is to prove to everyone that one game is better then the other. Nearly every thread has devolved into "Well bakc in 7th this wouldn't happen" or "Oh thank god it's 8th because back in 7th". I don't get that ,if you don't like 8th why spend time like a chaplain of the bearers of the world trying to convince people it's the worst and vice versa.

If people enjoy 8th, let them get on with it. Same with 7th, I'm lucky enough to play both Horus Heresy & 40k locally and for the life of me I don't understand people who seem to take it personally that someone doesn't like the edition they play.

**malamis**

vaklor4 wrote:

Some people dont have the damn time to play 3000+ games

3000 points of 'loud' armour guard will end the game in 2 turns; having enough Death To X output that anti-armour assets vanish in a cloud of fine radioactive mist turn 1, and everything else in turn 2.

Infantry guard at 3k is, I would suggest, no fun for anyone. I have yet to actually play Orks in 8th but I don't expect them to be having a good time in general :\

**tneva82**

malamis wrote:
Infantry guard at 3k is, I would suggest, no fun for anyone. I have yet to actually play Orks in 8th but I don't expect them to be having a good time in general :\

If you enjoy playing big hordes(and have movement trays to help moving) you have fighting chance against wide variety of lists. It's the worst of imperial/chaos soup you will be struggling. Problem being lousy internal balance. Lots of ork units are useless. Generally it's boyz boyz boyz and more boyz.

**Jidmah**

malamis wrote:
vaklor4 wrote:

Some people dont have the damn time to play 3000+ games

3000 points of 'loud' armour guard will end the game in 2 turns; having enough Death To X output that anti-armour assets vanish in a cloud of fine radioactive mist turn 1, and everything else in turn 2.

Infantry guard at 3k is, I would suggest, no fun for anyone. I have yet to actually play Orks in 8th but I don't expect them to be having a good time in general :\

It's not that bad when you don't play against top competitive lists. When playing maelstrom games, you stand a reasonable chance to defeat most armies that are not top tournament choices or vehicle spam.

The two big problems for orks are no good way to deal with multi-wound models at range and useless transports which were mandatory for many types of ork armies. And, of course, the power gap between index and codex armies.

You should have no illusions of being able to beat a fine-tuned chaos soup or Guilliman gunline though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Generally it's boyz boyz boyz and more boyz.

boyz, smiting boyz, flying boyz and deep striking boyz

**MagicJuggler**

Scott-S6 wrote:
warhead01 wrote:
We have a player that refuses to move to 8th. He's very vocal about his dislike of 8th. so we don't play 8th with him He like 30K which is still 7th and I haven't played but 1 game of 30K this year my self. I like 8th well enough but would prefer to play 2nd or 4th if I had the option to, which I don't.
My friend is struggling to find games. For what ever reasons gamers just move on to new editions. Some time the change is good some times it 3'rd, 5th, 6th and 7th edition.
All jokes aside 7th wouldn't have been that bad if every codex had been good.

It wasn't just a problem with the codexes though. Vehicles were weak to the point of being useless and the traditional high-S, high-AP that were many armies primary option for powerful weapons were absolutely inferior to the multi-shot mid-S weapons that only some armies had in quantity against vehicles, monsters and elite infantry.

To fix that via the codex would have required a complete re-design of the weapon profiles (multi-shot on everything powerful).

Or tweaking a few rules here and there to shift the equilibrium ij favor of dedicated AT. A few extra HP here, making damage mods start at AP3 (but making Vehicle Explodes "an extra D3 HP," similar to SHVs), and changing Tank Hunter to shift the vehicle damage die roll by +-1 instead of rerolling armor penetration.

**warhead01**

Scott-S6 wrote:
warhead01 wrote:
We have a player that refuses to move to 8th. He's very vocal about his dislike of 8th. so we don't play 8th with him He like 30K which is still 7th and I haven't played but 1 game of 30K this year my self. I like 8th well enough but would prefer to play 2nd or 4th if I had the option to, which I don't.
My friend is struggling to find games. For what ever reasons gamers just move on to new editions. Some time the change is good some times it 3'rd, 5th, 6th and 7th edition.
All jokes aside 7th wouldn't have been that bad if every codex had been good.

It wasn't just a problem with the codexes though. Vehicles were weak to the point of being useless and the traditional high-S, high-AP that were many armies primary option for powerful weapons were absolutely inferior to the multi-shot mid-S weapons that only some armies had in quantity against vehicles, monsters and elite infantry.

To fix that via the codex would have required a complete re-design of the weapon profiles (multi-shot on everything powerful).

I wasn't trying to get into all of that, just saying that it would have been better. And better based on not having had 8th to compare it to. Frankly each edition has gotten closer and closer to being better but has still missed the mark when it comes to 'the best edition". We have not has a the best edition. (Being completely subjective...) I have enjoyed bits from each edition and wished that they could have been mixed into a single edition to make my imagined "best edition" . 5th would have been better, to me, if it had retained the close combat rules from 4th. (for example) 4th was a nice step forward from the close combat in 3rd. and again the same from 3rd's being better than the ones in 2nd. (Which were...not so good really but that was a long time ago.)
I hated the USR's in 7th mostly due they the double speak interactions. I just want clear you or no when it comes to rules interactions. So I like the use of Key words to quickly sort that out.
There's a fair bit in 8th that I really like, picking my casualties from where ever I want in my units, would have been fantastic last edition and helped the Orks and probably any large model count army.

Prior to 8th edition I was ready to get out of 40K after 20 years. I was not having much fun any more. So far this edition has been fun and quite entertaining.

**admironheart**

so do this....

Sit down in a Tavern and you have a 2nd ed player and a 7th edition player and a new edition player....

Then you get to have an in person LARP dakkadakka forum sourfest at its best!

**malcontent999**

Vankraken wrote:
I know the passion I have for 40k has greatly diminished with 8th because the game just isn't fun. I enjoy the more complex rules and the niche mechanics that made 7th a bloated mess but it was a fun bloated mess. So many of the changes in 8th over simplified a lot of the weapons and rules to the point that so many things are similar and with too few niche uses that it feels like the illusion of choice and tactics has been greatly reduced. In particular the hamfisted changes to blast weapons made it so a lot of weapons either suck or worse don't serve a meaningful role on the battlefield because there are multiple other things that do something quite similar. As a person who likes finding those cool things to try out and trying to make less than optimal things work, it feels really deflating to see everything is rounded down removing the frequencies for edge cases (for a lack of a better word) to crop up which create variety.

6/7th's vehicle rules where a colossal dumpster fire of poor balance BUT the whole AV system, firing arcs, fire ports, etc made them feel interesting and quite cool (in particular being immune to small arms fire but bigger guns posed more of a threat). Vehicles now just feel like rolling meat boxes which are just more wounds and toughness than an infantryman.

Cover to me is the deal breaker because 8th feels like most games are on planet bowling ball due to how hamfisted and particular the cover rules are now. Makes tactical play much less interesting because it feels like your just walking through open fields unless you can fit the entire infantry squad inside the "area" of area terrain. Good luck getting a cover save for a 30 boy squad because its incredibly difficult and unlikely that boyz on the move will end up entirely inside a ruin, forest, etc. If your not infantry then you also need to be 50% obscured so once again good luck being in terrain and half obscured. If your a squad of non infantry then everyone in your squad needs to fulfill the fitting in and being obscured by 50%. In 7th having stuff in between the shooter and the target gave some cover so it meant that screening wasn't just for dealing with assault units but also useful with helping protect your further back units. Top it off with how if you have low armor (Ork boy) and your sitting in some ruins, you go from a 6+ to a 5+ save. Mr Space Marine with a plasma gun don't give a squig and will happily blast your face off with 100% of wounds going through because ruins don't stop big bad plasma anymore. Of course if your rocking some 2+ armor then you get even better armor that takes even more AP to shred. Low armor models that relied on cover in 7th are now just basically naked because guns with AP wipe the floor with them. Going back to weapon choices, the guns with good AP are good against most everything so there isn't much of a niche for weapons that ignore cover but sucked at getting through armor or those weapons that murder armor but lack the means to effectively deal with solid cover.

Note that none of this has to do with codex balance or anything because it doesn't matter if the game is balanced or not when the game itself isn't very fun for me to play. The game lacks the flavor and details that made it compelling for me and instead it just seems bland and boring. I still love 40k but its not this edition. Lately I've gone back to playing 7th and its been a breathe of fresh air to play some actual 40k instead of Age of Gulliman or whatever you want to call 8th. I would much rather play with 7th edition Orks against craftworld Eldar than I would like to play 8th.

The point of this small rant? People have the right to be upset about 8th and it doesn't mean they are WAAC or salty over losing their OP units/rules. Some people find 8th to be a bad bit of game design and with that the game isn't enjoyable. With a hobby like 40k its very difficult to just pack your thing up and not play because of the massive amount of time and money spent on these miniatures. It sucks for us that don't like what GW did and having a community that seems to want to denounce those who aren't happy with what GW is shoveling at us.

I love how you put that. I agree whole heartedly.

**admironheart**

Not sure if you were around....but anything that was 3rd and onwards....ANY 2nd edition player could have wrote your post Vankraken.

People hated 2nd....but more players quit after 3rd started than any other edition intro.2nd edition players hated the changes and felt abandoned for the kid with a $50 a week allowance and old players with established armies were disposable. It did help GW that 3rd edition was the most played edition to date so that mitigated those 2nd edition players leaving.

I hear great things about 5th from some players and some others speak of 3rd.

2 points: More retired players have come back for 8th than any other edition.
At this moment in time More people play 2nd edtion than RT, 3rd, 5th or even 7th.

So evidence aside for where upset 7th ed players fall, you are fall down the pecking list on the 'popular' choice of the fanbase. You will be forgotten and swept under or should we say squatted if you stay in your ever shrinking 7th ed player group.

Best thing is to bring to GW the best stuff from 7th to make 9th edition better. From what I know...universal rules was the best element from that versions ruleset.

2nd edition had datafaxes for vehicles with simple rules for moving and such, there was also character or flavor in the tailoring of your units.
3rd edtion gave us the FOC
I'm sure there is the best psychic version from one of the editions out there.
8th gave us hands down the easiest hth phase and fast play.

You let GW knows what is the best an perhaps 9th edition will bring the best from each and make the ultimate version.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arachnofiend wrote:

To be fair to the 7th edition players, the existence of 8th likely makes it very hard to find a 7th edition game.

What do you think happened when 3rd was released?

I read last winter that in one Australian group there are 36 active 2nd ed players. In my city there is about 15 active 2nd players. 2nd edition is alive and well with the BattleBible, websites and groups across the world. If 7th is loved so much you can keep it going. If it is more rose tinted shades then it will fade.

**kaotkbliss**

Trying to remember back 16 years or so when I tried 3rd edition for the 1 and only time.
I remember being quite disappointed in the over-simplification of the weapons. Power fists, Power swords, etc. were now all lumped together into a single category of "Power weapons" and all did the exact same thing. Same with pistols and close combat weapons (chainswords, chainfists, sword, knife, etc.)
There was no distinction anymore.
I was quite confused on the FOC as I was so used to simply being able to take whatever I wanted, just as long as no more than 25% of my points were spent on HQ, I spent at least 25% (or whatever it was) on troops, etc.
I also think the number of different spells a psyker had to choose from was reduced to like 4 or something from I think a dozen +

So basically, individuality was drastically reduced and odd things in the rules were made complicated

**tneva82**

kaotkbliss wrote:
Trying to remember back 16 years or so when I tried 3rd edition for the 1 and only time.
I remember being quite disappointed in the over-simplification of the weapons. Power fists, Power swords, etc. were now all lumped together into a single category of "Power weapons" and all did the exact same thing. Same with pistols and close combat weapons (chainswords, chainfists, sword, knife, etc.)
There was no distinction anymore.
I was quite confused on the FOC as I was so used to simply being able to take whatever I wanted, just as long as no more than 25% of my points were spent on HQ, I spent at least 25% (or whatever it was) on troops, etc.
I also think the number of different spells a psyker had to choose from was reduced to like 4 or something from I think a dozen +

So basically, individuality was drastically reduced and odd things in the rules were made complicated

Power fist were different from power swords and likely chainfists were at least power fist equilavent. From 3rd power fist/weapons were pretty much unchanged until they introduced AP to weapons. Before that they all ignored armour but S modifiers have been same from 3rd onward until power weapons got split into swords, axes etc.

**kaotkbliss**

Maybe. It has been a long time since I looked at them, I just remember nearly all the weapons were simply lumped into a few basic categories and weapons in the same category all had the exact same stats.

**admironheart**

tneva82 wrote:

Power fist were different from power swords and likely chainfists were at least power fist equilavent. From 3rd power fist/weapons were pretty much unchanged until they introduced AP to weapons. Before that they all ignored armour but S modifiers have been same from 3rd onward until power weapons got split into swords, axes etc.

nope in 2nd ed powerfists were the same on an ork or guardsman or marine str 8 and -5 save
chainfist was -6 I think, powerswords -3 ...that is when weapons were the same across the board no matter who used it.

**Talizvar**

vaklor4 wrote:
Im in a small playgroup of players both new and old. Two of our players are vets from 7th and older, and dislike most of the edition.
But its almost always because they are suprised or caught off guard by rules changes, and get salty mid game. Its became very very clear to me they just outright refuse or cant be asked to read the actual rule book, because Its became every game ive had, ive had to clarify a 7th to 8th change.
Should I just let them fall out of the game on their own, or try to wrangle them back in to show them maybe it isnt as bad as they imagine?

All you can do is say to them "We will be here for you when you are ready to play 8th edition".
I am sorry, the main rule for a "gamer" is to get to know the rules.
If it takes your opponent to educate you (other than beating the pants off you

), you are doing it wrong.

Now, I have been playing since 2nd edition, so for at least me being older and all and seeing so many similar rules come out: memories can be a bit of a mess from one edition to the next..
Heck, looking at the unit stats and seeing movement distance again makes me think I am playing Necromunda or 2nd edition again.

Or that the rules now are so much closer to "Bolt Action" I am glad they do not use order dice or I would be really confused.
I guess I am trying to say your patience is appreciated for those of us who have some 6+ versions of rules rattling around in their heads.

Those players described should only be upset at themselves for not getting it right.
Every physical rule book I have is coated in tabs and highlighted to look things up quick.
I love the electronic versions because I can do a word search which is MUCH better.

People tend to like the most what they are comfortable with.
They have "invested" in GW 40k and we all have our eyes open for one sure thing: the rules are always changing.

So they can "suck it up buttercup" because 90% of the players have upgraded / moved on, 8% may have left the game for other things and 2% may decide to play the old edition with their buddies for a while until they decide on option 1 or 2.

I find these old players that enjoyed the prior edition more were those who tooled up a competitive list and were hoping to ride the wave forever.
But now they have to understand the game and may have to work a little and update their army... the poor dears.

I am excited for the change, I really am.
Grey Knights do seem to be a casualty, everything else at first blush are looking good, too bad for them: I have a fair number of those models (largely in metal!).

My latest project is "updating" a fan Codex for Squats since my one friend seems to be hell-bent to continue playing them (yes, we are that old...).
The way GW "balances" unit costs and weapon costs is trickier that I thought but I am getting a handle on it (I do love Excel).

Do your best, play good people, ignore the jerks, help those who are trying and so further the hobby.
That is all anyone can reasonably ask of you.

**tneva82**

admironheart wrote:
tneva82 wrote:

Power fist were different from power swords and likely chainfists were at least power fist equilavent. From 3rd power fist/weapons were pretty much unchanged until they introduced AP to weapons. Before that they all ignored armour but S modifiers have been same from 3rd onward until power weapons got split into swords, axes etc.

nope in 2nd ed powerfists were the same on an ork or guardsman or marine str 8 and -5 save
chainfist was -6 I think, powerswords -3 ...that is when weapons were the same across the board no matter who used it.

The before was related to power weapons between 3rd and 7th(or was it 6th) when they split power weapons into type. Nothing related to 2nd edition since those things were vastly different.

I still play 2nd ed as my main game choice of 40k(for 30k 7.5th ed) so I know how weapons there worked.